value proposition

Raingen has no plans to carry out further evaluations, which is not to say more could not be proven. After all to date all that has been “proven” is that the technology as designed, supplied and operated by the company, works in the adelaide Hills and in the Hagar mountains in Oman.

I am informed however, that it is a reasonable assumption that if it works in the warm marine air masses that come off the ocean in SA that it would work similarly in the similar climatic conditions that exist on Australia’s East and West coasts and elsewhere inland.

Under any of the options offered by Raingen, the business case has sufficient margin for the end user such that even if there was only 1% enhancement, any investment would be likely to be between worthwhile and high return.

The following has been successfully replicated over 3 consecutive seasons in two different  locations:

  1. That 1 Rainmaker, affects an area approximately 60 degrees wide going downwind 90kms.
  2. This represents a target area of approximately 4240 square kms.

(Note this varies on wind strength and direction constancy of rain bearing systems, but is a statistically significant average)

In a geography that has say a 600mm annual rainfall, assuming the rain came generally from the same direction, history shows a Rainmaker would likely put 10% or 60mm of additional rainfall over  the target area.

The maths is simple, though some might find it hard to believe.

Take a geography that has say a 600mm annual rainfall.

An additional 60mm of rainfall on this area is equivalent to 2.5 million megalitres

At $150/ML, this is equivalent to an extra $375million of additional water.

It is at least a genuine approximation.


A. The most significant caveat in installing a single rainmaker is that its efficacy cannot be proven.
In all the trials carried out to establish efficacy:

    1. At least 2 systems were installed at a sufficient distance apart to ensure no overlap of resulting ion plumes.
    2. The devices were randomly turned on and off to a pre agreed sequence, derived in conjunction with, and overseen by an independent panel of scientists and statisticians. At times both were operating, at times one or the other and at times none.
    3. Then a model was constructed comparing rainfall data from the dynamic model, using steering wind data to determine which rain gauges were target and which were control in all given conditions.
    4. Finally this model was compared with at least 10 years of data from the same sources prior to the trial taking place. The efficacy of the systems can be derived from the difference between the models, which accounts for seasonal variation and the effects of the topography.

B. A single system proposed as an entry level end user ‘trial’ is unlikely to be in the optimum location for all the rain bearing systems in a given season.
If rain bearing systems approach from 2 main directions, a mobile unit can be rented and relacted based on weather models
See the various options available under Equipment

Invesment return example
Outlay: 1 system
The average cost of fixed installation on a 12 month contract is approx $175,000, including installation, monitoring maintaining and removal. Difficult access could increase the cost.
Likely return: worst case
Assume the chosen location caused only a quarter of the passing rain bearing systems to be enhanced over the target area, probably a conservative assumption if best efforts were made.
Assume further that the enhancement was only 2% rather than the forecast 10%. 
The additional value of water added to the target area would be reduced to $18,750,000.

Any money outlayed would be returned over a hundred times