6 ms·

This whole project just seems so insane to me. A medium sized damn in my area was built for a bit less than $10 million back in the 50's and has a capacity hitt

This whole project just seems so insane to me. A medium sized damn in my area was built for a bit less than $10 million back in the 50's and has a capacity hitting around 1,000 Mw. Obviously dams are highly location dependent, and are somewhat on the shadier side of environmental impact. But 900 times the cost for half the power output is just crazy. Is there really no better way to get power into the country? Or is this just some publicity / money burning stunt?

jordanlev 11y ago
Just guessing, since I have no specific knowledge about this area... but perhaps Morocco doesn't have a river they can dam? Also, perhaps it is an investment in the technology and skills required to build solar power plants, so that as things become less expensive and more efficient in the future they are poised to be experts or leaders in the field? (So it's an "R&D" investment of sorts).
- m0skit0 11y ago
  Morocco has rivers and dams already. Geographically speaking it has almost everything, from sand desert to skiing stations. This is personal publicity for the King himself.
  - groby_b 11y ago
    Not sure why you're downvoted - that certainly seems like another likely candidate for why this is happening. The moment you read the quote “At around 2pm, the king will press a button, the parabolic mirrors will start turning, the heat will begin to turn the turbines and the plant will come to life,” - you have to wonder how much of this is a vanity project.
    - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
      Not at all. The country is deeply dependant on imports of fossil fuels for its energy, something around 96%. In the case of electricity it's mostly coal from South Africa. If you're familiar with hard currency scarcity issues, I need not say more. Morocco consistently struggles with that every year, and the economy has been pretty deeply affected by energy price swings in the past. The past years it received various precautionary loans to deal with this, which needn't be exercised due to favourable oil prices. Anyway, energy import dependency is a huge issue for Morocco, more so than for a country with a hard currency, say the US, any country in Europe, Japan etc. It's a burden on the economy, and moving towards self-sufficiency has benefits beyond the basic economics of typical energy infrastructure. As for why solar? Well it's a country with some of the largest solar potential resources in the world, and on a relative scale it's off the charts. Morocco has several hydro projects, but they have mostly utilised their hydro capacity and in fact need to do some repairs on existing ones. There's very little potential for massively scaling that up. Pumped hydro is an option into the future, but it's a storage solution, not a source of renewable energy in and of itself. Wind, also, can't beat solar in Moroccan conditions. And again, Morocco has few fossil fuels. It has some oil reserves but they're not exploited because they're not economically viable and no exploration company really wants to get in there, not 10 years ago and definitely not today, and even then the reserves are small fry compared to say Algeria let alone elsewhere. Short story is, Morocco needs energy independence badly, not 100% but it needs to start moving towards it. And relatively the best resource to do that is solar. You need projects to get started, build an industry, build expertise and expand it out, this is step one and it's certainly not a vanity project. Btw it is relatively expensive for a solar project, which is a bit disappointing, but it must also be noted that it can generate energy even when the sun is down as it includes a storage solution which is priced in, so it can't be compared 1 on 1 vs a regular solar installation that doesn't have one.
      - m0skit0 11y ago
        All that is true fellow compatriot, but as you know, everyone on the process of being energy independent has to take his part of the cake, which is of course made of public money. Your taxes and mine. And of course show off as if it was his own personal project.
        IkmoIkmo 11y ago
        Well I can note two things. For one, energy is deeply subsidised in Morocco. Whatever corruption is obviously present in Morocco, sadly, the general public is better off on this road of energy independence, financially too, especially in the long-run, and due to subsidies, in the short term the consequences are limited to some extent. Secondly, it's absolutely true of course the King is present on every major occasion. But what's the alternative? I don't think Morocco is ready for the alternative. As much as the king sucks in some ways and generates ridiculous revenues for him and his close allies, he's keeping the place together and Morocco is moving forward into a positive future. That's a big deal for what really is quite a poor North-African country with few natural resources, a not so recent colonial past, especially compared to most arab nations that have far more resources. Does the corruption suck? Absolutely, but I see it as part of the system. In much of the 'west' we have taxes that are used to run a more-or-less democratically elected government. In Morocco this tax is levied in the form of corruption and used to run a non-elected system of governance. The former is obviously preferable to the latter, but both are imperfect and the latter is generally working out for the Moroccan public, whose lives are getting better on the whole, their economy is growing on the whole, even through the crisis, in a world that's becoming more grim and harder to navigate. Morocco has deep challenges but the King putting up his usual show/routine is really not one of my current concerns. Beyond that, it must be said this project was mostly externally funded, from Saudi Arabia, CIF, African Bank etc. If anything, given the strong electricity subsidies for households, I'd expect the public to be net beneficiaries of this project.
        petra 11y ago
        >> this project was mostly externally funded, from Saudi Arabia, CIF, African Bank etc. If anything, given the strong electricity subsidies for households, I'd expect the public to be net beneficiaries of this project. Aren't subsidies paid from public taxes ? And does it matter who finance this , when part of the deal is a contract to sell expensive electricity to the people of morroco ?
m0skit0 11y ago
In Morocco 50% is for the actual cost and 50% is for bribes.
ethagknight 11y ago
Dams are dependent on a large volume of water flowing over a large drop to spin turbines. Looking at the aerial in the article, it's safe to assume that the water in the dam is a precious strategic resource and cannot be sent downstream in sufficient volume to provide infrastructure scale power.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- waiseristy 11y ago
  I'm not trying to imply that Morocco's money would be better spent on dams, as Morocco is not in a location suitable for dams. I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that they intend to invest in a facility that will cost 1800x more per Kw than another common source of energy. Perhaps a better comparison would be pure solar, or off shore wind. Though I'm still confident those options would still be vastly cheaper than their current plan
  - eru 11y ago
    Or alternatively, put the money in some investment vehicle, and buy energy (electricity / oil) via long running contracts from the returns.
IkmoIkmo 11y ago
Can you refer me to the dam in your area? Anyway, short answer, no it's not 900x for half the power. Power stations are generally measured in capacity, often without mentioning the capacity factor. e.g. you could build a damn that can produce 1000 MW of power, but it is not connected to a river and relies on pumped storage, and have only storage for 1 hour of generating. The net energy generation of that facility is actually negative, a small cost for energy storage. You can't compare that to another installation which actually generates energy for 10 hours a day. They're completely different yet both carry a power rating which is not meaningful for comparing them in the way you'd want to. I've got no clue whether that's the case for the dam you're mentioning, just giving an example where comparisons can go wrong. I can guarantee it's not 900x for 0.5x though, what it is exactly I don't know but perhaps you can name me the dam. (in other news, the Guardian article is pretty shitty because it barely specifies any of the variables itself, like say a capacity factor. Read it as a general announcement, not a tech spec.) That having been said, it IS a relatively more expensive project regardless. But one mustn't forget it includes a storage solution, too.
- waiseristy 11y ago
  Hmmmm, yes. I have made an error in my logic by looking at peak production thanks for pointing that out. Upon some digging I found that the Wanapum Dam in Washington (The one I was referencing) generates around 4 million MWh, or 4000 GWh per annum. Though the wiki is a little vague, not sure if that's max capacity or average. And looking on the Grant County website, it says that the dams construction cost was around $90 million, so a bit more than I previously stated. On the other hand, the Quarzazate solar station will produce an expected 370 GWh per annum, according to the wiki. So, 10 times less power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the ratios still stay the same? Edit: I was reading the wrong section of the wiki, phase 1 is 370 GWh. 2 and 3 add 1100 more. 1470 total.
  - strommen 11y ago
    The per-annum value is the total amount of energy generated over the course of the year. The Wannapum dam is rated at 1,400 MW; if it generated that 24x365, it would generate 12.3 million MWh. Since it actually generates 4 million MWH, it is running at about 30% capacity. That said, a $90M dam in the 1950s would be a lot more expensive today. Partly due to inflation, but also for extra effort to preserve river ecology, etc. that nobody cared too much about back then.

jordanlev 11y ago

Just guessing, since I have no specific knowledge about this area... but perhaps Morocco doesn't have a river they can dam? Also, perhaps it is an investment in the technology and skills required to build solar power plants, so that as things become less expensive and more efficient in the future they are poised to be experts or leaders in the field? (So it's an "R&D" investment of sorts).

m0skit0 11y ago
Morocco has rivers and dams already. Geographically speaking it has almost everything, from sand desert to skiing stations. This is personal publicity for the King himself.
- groby_b 11y ago
  Not sure why you're downvoted - that certainly seems like another likely candidate for why this is happening. The moment you read the quote “At around 2pm, the king will press a button, the parabolic mirrors will start turning, the heat will begin to turn the turbines and the plant will come to life,” - you have to wonder how much of this is a vanity project.
  - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
    Not at all. The country is deeply dependant on imports of fossil fuels for its energy, something around 96%. In the case of electricity it's mostly coal from South Africa. If you're familiar with hard currency scarcity issues, I need not say more. Morocco consistently struggles with that every year, and the economy has been pretty deeply affected by energy price swings in the past. The past years it received various precautionary loans to deal with this, which needn't be exercised due to favourable oil prices. Anyway, energy import dependency is a huge issue for Morocco, more so than for a country with a hard currency, say the US, any country in Europe, Japan etc. It's a burden on the economy, and moving towards self-sufficiency has benefits beyond the basic economics of typical energy infrastructure. As for why solar? Well it's a country with some of the largest solar potential resources in the world, and on a relative scale it's off the charts. Morocco has several hydro projects, but they have mostly utilised their hydro capacity and in fact need to do some repairs on existing ones. There's very little potential for massively scaling that up. Pumped hydro is an option into the future, but it's a storage solution, not a source of renewable energy in and of itself. Wind, also, can't beat solar in Moroccan conditions. And again, Morocco has few fossil fuels. It has some oil reserves but they're not exploited because they're not economically viable and no exploration company really wants to get in there, not 10 years ago and definitely not today, and even then the reserves are small fry compared to say Algeria let alone elsewhere. Short story is, Morocco needs energy independence badly, not 100% but it needs to start moving towards it. And relatively the best resource to do that is solar. You need projects to get started, build an industry, build expertise and expand it out, this is step one and it's certainly not a vanity project. Btw it is relatively expensive for a solar project, which is a bit disappointing, but it must also be noted that it can generate energy even when the sun is down as it includes a storage solution which is priced in, so it can't be compared 1 on 1 vs a regular solar installation that doesn't have one.
    - m0skit0 11y ago
      All that is true fellow compatriot, but as you know, everyone on the process of being energy independent has to take his part of the cake, which is of course made of public money. Your taxes and mine. And of course show off as if it was his own personal project.
      - IkmoIkmo 11y ago
        Well I can note two things. For one, energy is deeply subsidised in Morocco. Whatever corruption is obviously present in Morocco, sadly, the general public is better off on this road of energy independence, financially too, especially in the long-run, and due to subsidies, in the short term the consequences are limited to some extent. Secondly, it's absolutely true of course the King is present on every major occasion. But what's the alternative? I don't think Morocco is ready for the alternative. As much as the king sucks in some ways and generates ridiculous revenues for him and his close allies, he's keeping the place together and Morocco is moving forward into a positive future. That's a big deal for what really is quite a poor North-African country with few natural resources, a not so recent colonial past, especially compared to most arab nations that have far more resources. Does the corruption suck? Absolutely, but I see it as part of the system. In much of the 'west' we have taxes that are used to run a more-or-less democratically elected government. In Morocco this tax is levied in the form of corruption and used to run a non-elected system of governance. The former is obviously preferable to the latter, but both are imperfect and the latter is generally working out for the Moroccan public, whose lives are getting better on the whole, their economy is growing on the whole, even through the crisis, in a world that's becoming more grim and harder to navigate. Morocco has deep challenges but the King putting up his usual show/routine is really not one of my current concerns. Beyond that, it must be said this project was mostly externally funded, from Saudi Arabia, CIF, African Bank etc. If anything, given the strong electricity subsidies for households, I'd expect the public to be net beneficiaries of this project.
        petra 11y ago
        >> this project was mostly externally funded, from Saudi Arabia, CIF, African Bank etc. If anything, given the strong electricity subsidies for households, I'd expect the public to be net beneficiaries of this project. Aren't subsidies paid from public taxes ? And does it matter who finance this , when part of the deal is a contract to sell expensive electricity to the people of morroco ?

m0skit0 11y ago

In Morocco 50% is for the actual cost and 50% is for bribes.

ethagknight 11y ago

Dams are dependent on a large volume of water flowing over a large drop to spin turbines. Looking at the aerial in the article, it's safe to assume that the water in the dam is a precious strategic resource and cannot be sent downstream in sufficient volume to provide infrastructure scale power.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
waiseristy 11y ago
I'm not trying to imply that Morocco's money would be better spent on dams, as Morocco is not in a location suitable for dams. I'm merely drawing attention to the fact that they intend to invest in a facility that will cost 1800x more per Kw than another common source of energy. Perhaps a better comparison would be pure solar, or off shore wind. Though I'm still confident those options would still be vastly cheaper than their current plan
- eru 11y ago
  Or alternatively, put the money in some investment vehicle, and buy energy (electricity / oil) via long running contracts from the returns.

IkmoIkmo 11y ago

Can you refer me to the dam in your area? Anyway, short answer, no it's not 900x for half the power. Power stations are generally measured in capacity, often without mentioning the capacity factor. e.g. you could build a damn that can produce 1000 MW of power, but it is not connected to a river and relies on pumped storage, and have only storage for 1 hour of generating. The net energy generation of that facility is actually negative, a small cost for energy storage. You can't compare that to another installation which actually generates energy for 10 hours a day. They're completely different yet both carry a power rating which is not meaningful for comparing them in the way you'd want to. I've got no clue whether that's the case for the dam you're mentioning, just giving an example where comparisons can go wrong. I can guarantee it's not 900x for 0.5x though, what it is exactly I don't know but perhaps you can name me the dam. (in other news, the Guardian article is pretty shitty because it barely specifies any of the variables itself, like say a capacity factor. Read it as a general announcement, not a tech spec.) That having been said, it IS a relatively more expensive project regardless. But one mustn't forget it includes a storage solution, too.

waiseristy 11y ago
Hmmmm, yes. I have made an error in my logic by looking at peak production thanks for pointing that out. Upon some digging I found that the Wanapum Dam in Washington (The one I was referencing) generates around 4 million MWh, or 4000 GWh per annum. Though the wiki is a little vague, not sure if that's max capacity or average. And looking on the Grant County website, it says that the dams construction cost was around $90 million, so a bit more than I previously stated. On the other hand, the Quarzazate solar station will produce an expected 370 GWh per annum, according to the wiki. So, 10 times less power. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the ratios still stay the same? Edit: I was reading the wrong section of the wiki, phase 1 is 370 GWh. 2 and 3 add 1100 more. 1470 total.
- strommen 11y ago
  The per-annum value is the total amount of energy generated over the course of the year. The Wannapum dam is rated at 1,400 MW; if it generated that 24x365, it would generate 12.3 million MWh. Since it actually generates 4 million MWH, it is running at about 30% capacity. That said, a $90M dam in the 1950s would be a lot more expensive today. Partly due to inflation, but also for extra effort to preserve river ecology, etc. that nobody cared too much about back then.