There are times, in the Daintree Cape Tribulation rainforest, when rainfall is so overly abundant that it would seem irresponsible not to derive electricity from hydro-generation. However, the Queensland Government’s existing policy prohibits supply between properties, so hydro-potential can only exist on a per property basis and very few have both the requisite flow rate and head.
At Cooper Creek Wilderness, water is diverted from the creek in the above photograph, through a 63 mm poly-pipe at a flow rate of 1.2 litres/sec. The diversion travels just under 1.6 km and drops 59 metres, losing 21 metres through friction. The water is released under high pressure through a nozzle onto a pelton wheel, generating 52 volts at 5.1 amps DC or around 6 kwhrs/day.
The beauty of hydro-power, is that it is constant, 24-hours per day, for as long as the creek’s flow rate exceeds the intake requirements of the hydro-plant. By contrast solar-power is intermittent and at its very best, can only derive electricity when the sun is out. In a place of abundantly high rainfall and luxuriant canopy, it is even more elusive. The reality is, Queensland’s Electricity Policy for the Daintree Area ensures more than 80% reliance upon engine generators.
In a media release last Wednesday, Queensland Premier Bligh announced two new initiatives in ‘Queensland’s fight against climate change, including a pilot program to deliver zero emission solar energy to 1,000 households in regional Queensland’.
“The Government will bulk purchase 1,000 solar power energy systems to make the green, renewable energy source a viable option for Queensland families.
“Even with the current rebates currently offered by the Federal Government, Queensland families still face an out-of-pocket expense of between $4,500-$5,000 to install a 1kW system.
“Our aim with this scheme is to drive that out-of-pocket expense down to around $1,000-$1,500, making the solar choice a much more viable one.”
Within the same media release, Queensland’s Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, Andrew McNamara said Queensland was currently a low-user of solar power compared with other states.
“As at September last year, only 446 Queensland homes were using grid-connected solar power systems, compared with 2,045 in South Australia, 1,166 in Victoria and 1,007 in New South Wales,” Mr McNamara said.
“This initiative will take what is a boutique industry in Queensland to new heights and create a new wave of green collar jobs.”
The press release has drawn attention to another flawed aspect of existing policy, whereby the Daintree’s Renewable Power production is not available to Queensland through the grid. Queensland’s performance would certainly look healthier compared with other states if all of the renewable electricity generated in the Daintree region was not excluded.
The Premier has also announced that all relevant Cabinet proposals will now include an assessment of climate change impacts for Cabinet’s consideration.
“This means any proposals involving potential increases in greenhouse gas emissions – or projects that may be affected by climate change impacts such as sea level rise – must include an assessment of these issues for consideration by Cabinet.”
In the Daintree Cape Tribulation rainforest community, we are hopeful that this will draw renewed Cabinet consideration to the flawed Daintree policy and address the disgraceful emissions of the hundreds of concurrently running generators polluting both the rainforest and also the health of the sole tourism economy.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is billed as a ‘fight against climate change,’ which it isn’t really unless the assumption is correct that we can predictably influence climate by attempting to manipulate atmospheric CO2 emissions unilaterally on a short enough timescale.
The IPCC view is that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years. The sceptics view is a more optimistic 5 to 10 years.
Surely renewable energy for renewable energy’s sake is cause enough, if it is reliable and cost effective?
Another loonie proposal from Ms. Hardhat.
More useless public servants wasting taxpayers money on mythical solutions to the climate change non issue.
I wonder if Ms Hardhat has figured out if the solar cells ever return more energy than they use in manufacture? They are just a way of using more coal right now to get a smaller amount of energy in future over many years.
Most interesting the way the state has moved to prevent competition to its monopolies. The economics of any form of local generation are substantially boosted by the addition of even one extra user, let alone another five to ten.
This is not new. They have done the same thing with water. If I build an off stream, or 1st or 2nd order stream dam on my property and find a customer down stream who wants to buy some of my water, I cannot deliver that water to him via the stream.
In law, we are constantly told that rivers are public right-of-ways but the state has been very careful to ensure that we cannot use rivers, like a road or railway line, to deliver water to any other user but the state. We can walk beside, swim or fish in, or go boating on, rivers but the essential attribute of a river, the flow of water, is a right that has been denied us without our knowledge or consent by mandate.
The moment I release water into the stream it becomes the property of the state. No ifs or buts.
There is no scope for me to make a measured release so my customer can pump the same volume from the creek further down.
And this restriction on both my own liberty and that of my customer is done in the name of environmental protection despite the fact that any such private sale to a downstream user is likely to take place in a dry season when the wildlife that depend on the river will need that flow the most.
My only option is to install a pipe, at prohibitive expense, that will run beside the stream but provide no ecological benefit from the flow. And the number of potential customers for my water is substantially limited accordingly.
There is no better example of the contribution that could be made by de-regulated private sector ecology. The maximum ecological benefit would occur when a landowner at the very top of a catchment stores his own runoff (aspecially as flood mitigation) and sells it during a dry season to a consumer at the river mouth.
This would result in an ecological benefit being delivered to the entire length of the river system, at minimal cost, at the time it is most needed, to the economic benefit of both supplier and consumer.
But don’t hold your breath. This is the brave new green utopia, remember? Where the dead hand of the bureaucrat is directed by the dull wit of the gonzo greens.
I didn’t know the greens were that organised at Federation. And looks to me like laissez-faire can also end up with the Macquarie marshes levees.
Neil I would assume that the policies have some root in the notion to suppress development north of the Daintree. Otherwise they would provide mains power and dispense with the smelly generators. So the specific issue is not really the issue – you could easily add sealing roads, better river crossings, a Daintree bridge instead of a ferry etc. You could rightly argue therefore that these “policies” have indirectly produced perverse ecological outcomes.
Would have thought a compromise would be to allow some “limited” on-selling of hydro power – so as to prevent landholders building mega-structures which would need oversight and regulation.
But if the real underlying policy is aimed at making any major development deliberately difficult – it is that that is the issue.
Eyrie is right in signalling that we need to take account of energy and resource inputs for any action we take:
– “I wonder if Ms Hardhat has figured out if the solar cells ever return more energy than they use in manufacture? They are just a way of using more coal right now to get a smaller amount of energy in future over many years. Posted by: Eyrie at March 9, 2008 08:01 AM”
BUT incorrect in the assertion re solar panels not offsetting the energy inputs. Based on first year results, my 5KW grid connected photovoltaic system in southern coastal WA will return the inputs of manufacture, transport and installation within 2-3 years out of a minimum operating life of 20 years. Average ouput is >25KW/day – 2 to 3 times our family of 6 needs (I acknowledge that this won’t be as high deep in a rainforest but that’s just about intelligent choices of sites and combinations of energy production, such as small scale hydro as already mentioned).
I’m now seriously researching an electric vehicle for the 90% of our transport needs that are >50KM round trip. If I retrofit an existing vehicle (ie inputs already expended) and charge it from my excess solar capacity I will be operating from a much lower “input debt” base, and a MUCH lower carbon dioxide impact from day one.
Of course the initial investment is relatively high but this is not a short-term money making exercise, it is a lifesaving one.
“From little things big things grow”
Howdy Luke,
You may have been (at least) partially correct, back in May 2000, when development rights for dwelling homes were as-of-right and a number of accommodation approvals had been historically issued on spec, however, as of September 2006, development is now bedded into some of the most Draconian regulations conceivable.
However, I would have hoped that more Australians would have be outspoken in their opposition to the Queensland government deliberately withholding an essential service and imposing an inadequate alternative at thirty-times the cost of other Queensland consumers, as a means of discouraging settlement on privately-owned lands. That it would be done in the name of preserving ecologically important values through delivery that places those values at far greater risk than reticulation, is quite simply perverse.
Development control has always been the providence of government, through legislation and planning instruments, but not through the imposition of deliberate hardship via a program of attrition.
There was also a clear understanding, agreed to and acted upon in various ways by every level of government, that once the conservation targets were met in terms of reduced settlement capacity and the IPA-compliant planning scheme adopted, that power would be reticulated in an environmentally appropriate manner.
And you seriously believed a government would stick to an agreement, Neil? That a defined “conservation target” would remain at the same level? That after taking you down on one count, that they would not be back for more?
Betray you twice then shame on you, not them.
Aren’t the usual suspects so deafeningly quiet on this issue!
Tony,
I doubt that you even know what amount of energy was used to manufacture, transport and install your solar array.
BTW the energy produced per day is measured in KiloWatt-hours not Kilowatts which is the power unit(energy rate). From your numbers your 5KW system seems to deliver on average a little over 1KW.
You claim this is 2 – 3 times what your family of 6 needs. I’ve looked at some cities and electrical power generation and it seems to me for a modern civilization you need around 1KW average per person all the time in very approximate numbers. While you may be able to do better than this in your domestic situation the materials for your dwelling came from somewhere and a fair bit of electrical energy was used to manufacture them and all the other modern goodies that you use. You say you are grid connected – the investment had to be made in the grid and the power stations supplying it.
As for the twenty year life, don’t you ever have severe hailstorms where you are?
I’d like to see solar array factories forced to run on solar arrays ONLY . Would be interesting to see if any surplus of solar arrays is ever produced for sale.
I doubt you are saving any CO2 emissions at all and if you are worried about that you have obviously drunk the AGW kool-aid. How come you live near the coast? Aren’t you worried about rising sea levels?
Hi Eyrie,
You are correct, I omitted to say KiloWatt Hours – I’ve fallen into the shorthand of KiloWatts – so to recap, we are averaging 25 KiloWatt Hours per day out of our photovoltaic array- we use 8-10 per day in house, the rest goes out into the grid.
Re embodied energy in production, transport, installation etc – in Europe these numbers are increasingly expected (and manufacturers who want to be in that market are complying), so I made some conservative extrapolations from those, added in the costs of freight (didn’t count the costs of building the ships or trucks because they do lots of other stuff too) and installation (I was present for that) and matched that against both financial return at current KW Hour pricing and CO2 reduction (this too is notional as exact data isn’t easy to come by).
Nowhere in my post did I suggest there shouldn’t be a grid – I do believe we could usefully broaden the inputs to smooth out peak loads and reduce the need to build more big coal-fired infrastructure, but given our modern lifestyle and the absence of other ways to stockpile electricity, baseline grids are necessary. Indeed, being connected to the grid means I put energy in during daytime peak demand, and take back some in the night when there is lowest demand. I was able to spend all the money on he biggest array I could afford rather than divert resources to battery banks (which in terms of resource use, pollution, recycling problems, inefficiency, lifespan etc are still the Achilles Heel of the off-grid world) that because of the grid I don’t need.
Re rising sea levels – I live 58 metres above current sea level on the edge of an inland ancient sea – not immediately worried about rising sea levels (although other weather and climate consequences may become more pressing) but my children’s children might need to invest in watercraft.
By the way, I’m comfortable with my decision not to count any embodied inputs for the transport ships and trucks as the impact of my 28 panels was tiny – I will count it the day a big portion of the cargo is photovotaic panels as then thay will be a significant reason for the existence of the ship/truck, and for the journey (this is like the road transport industry not including cost or unpkeep of roads because others use them, but rail having to include all costs of building and maintaining lines – Ha).
Cheers
Tony