Morocco to switch on first phase of world's largest solar plant

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/morocco-to-switch-on-first-phase-of-worlds-largest-solar-plant

by jaoued • 10 years ago

175 72 10 years ago

strommen4• 10 years ago

$9B for a 580MW plant is _expensive_. For reference, most photovoltaic plants cost less than $3/W. Of course, PV stops working as soon as the sun goes down.

I'm curious how much additional capacity this thing gets by using solar heat instead.

strommen4• 10 years ago

As always, Wikipedia is informative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_solar_power_stati.... The numbers there suggest a capacity factor of 26%...PV at that latitude might get about 2/3 of that.

Also from Wikipedia: they have a contract to sell the power at 19¢/kWh. For reference, coal and wind in the U.S. sell for more like 3¢.

It's great to see the world embrace clean energy, but the money in this project seems nuts to me.

groby_b3• 10 years ago

Wild guess - it's a strategic thing for Europe.

1) They're very leery of whatever's Russia up to, and much of their NatGas comes from there. Any alternative energy is good energy.

2) It shores up the economy in a relatively stable part of northern Africa that'd be a prime location for people wanting to immigrate to spain. More refugees are not a good plan.

3) It helps Europe to hit Carbon reduction targets without having to deal with the NIMBY population.

Or at least it was a strategic thing. Reading some more, European investors pulled out, and it's the Africa Development Bank now. Maybe the money is too nuts even with strategic goals in mind.

0xffff22• 10 years ago

Well, the article says it will provide power for 3 hours after sunset. Assuming 12 hours of useful sunlight per day, it seems safe to guess that it provides something on the order of 25% more power.

lxmorj• 10 years ago

Wouldn't it likely take three hours to start after sunrise then?

205guy• 10 years ago

In a grid dominated by solar energy production the peak demand on a utility is shifted from the mid-day air-conditioning load to the evening. That's when people go home and turn on lights and use appliances, and there are still some industrial loads. So storing the renewable solar energy for those 3 hours is critical to leveling peaks and reducing the need for standby capacity (the high-cost plant that can be spun up on demand to meet the peak).

m0skit05• 10 years ago

Like I said in another comment: in Morocco 50% is for the actual cost and 50% is for bribes. This is how "makhzen" works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makhzen

petra2• 10 years ago

At those differences ,they might as well use solar PV ,and heat salts for energy storage for the nighttime. But who knows, maybe it's a job generator, or there's some sort of corruption around it.

themodelplumber• 10 years ago

or there's some sort of corruption around it.

Does this project count as "public procurement?" If so the chances of corruption would seem higher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Morocco

Steko• 10 years ago

According to PV-magazine [1]:

This portion of the plant comes in around $6/watt, still bad but not as bad as the headline number for the whole project.

Also the 4th stage of the plant will be PV.

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/morocco-inau...

barney542• 10 years ago

It's true that solar thermal can produce electricity after the sun goes down, but they also use natural gas--at least Brightsource's Ivanoah plant: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

winter_blue• 10 years ago

Actually, the Wikipedia article[1] says it ("Noor 1") costs $3.9 billion, and produce 125 to 160 MW.

That is $24/W to $31/W. That is horrible. For cleaning the reflectors, it apparently uses 23 times as much water as a dry cooled coal power station.

It makes me sad to think that money and resources are being spent so inefficiently, in a country where the GDP per capita is $3k/year.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_solar_power_station

waiseristy4• 10 years ago

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• 10 years 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).

m0skit05• 10 years 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.

m0skit05• 10 years ago

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

ethagknight2• 10 years 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.

waiseristy4• 10 years 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

IkmoIkmo6• 10 years 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.

waiseristy4• 10 years 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.

0xffff22• 10 years ago

I'm surprised to see that this project uses wet cooling. Wikipedia claims it uses at least twice as much water as a coal power plant of similar capacity.

Is water surprisingly abundant in this part of the Sahara?

groby_b3• 10 years ago

Next to a sizeable lake: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ouarzazate+45000,+Morocco/...

Out of curiosity - what are the options outside of wet cooling?

_-__---• 10 years ago

also, what can be done with the hot water coming out of the system?

m0skit05• 10 years ago

Ouarzazate has a pretty big dam nearby. Also Ouarzazate is technically not Sahara yet.

dools3• 10 years ago

This is a great project, the only thing that concerns me about it is the very large loan from the IMF denominated in USD they took out in order to build it. Could well have been the work of EHMs

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/...

IkmoIkmo6• 10 years ago

Could you refer me to the IMF loan, I can't find it?

I do know Morocco took our a precautionary loan, iirc with the IMF, in the past few years which was renewed not so long ago. But it was renewed because it was not exercised, it's more of a free loan option they had secured to protect against the very swings in fossil fuel prices that a project like this diminishes due to increased energy independence. Perhaps that's the loan you're referring to? In that case, note that Morocco didn't actually lend the money, it only secured the option to borrow in case shit hits the fan. (oil goes to $100, which is a disaster for Morocco, but no sign of that anytime soon).

dools3• 10 years ago

The article I read that in originally references a mixture of private and "IFI funding"[1] which I took to mean International Financial Institutions (which includes IMF/WorldBank etc. who make loans denominated in USD)[2].

The book I referenced above is by John Perkins who worked as a consultant for a company who would justify huge loans denominated in USD for power infrastructure to developing nations, but a significant majority of the work and materials would come from US companies. So the World Bank or the IMF would loan tonnes of money to someone in USD, much of it being transferred directly to companies in the US anyway, and leaving the nation with a large debt to service in a currency they do not issue (leaving them vulnerable to pressure from the US to export goods, for example, even though people require them locally, to liberalised trade agreements, or even to be allies in conflict etc. all sorts of sordid shit; the John Perkins stuff is well worth reading).

When governments take on large debts denominated in a currency they do not issue, it's always a cause for concern. That's why MMT academics were against the Euro[3], and why so many developing nations are now locked into crippling debt service that they cannot possibly keep up with.

Countries like the US, UK, Australia and Japan who only issue debt (ie. all currency or treasury securities) denominated in their own currency, have no risk of insolvency and no trouble servicing the debt[4] -- they can choose to stop paying interest any time they want and indeed the "debt" people refer to in those economies is really a "buffer stock" rather than a "bond market"[5]

When a nation that does not issue USD (ie. any nation other than the US) takes on USD denominated debt, with interest payments denominated in USD, they're up shit creek without a paddle.

[1] http://www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/projec...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_financial_instit...

[3] http://www.amazon.com/Eurozone-Dystopia-Groupthink-Denial-Gr...

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i35uBVeNp6c

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soVyyyXrcwo&index=6&list=PLo...

aedron2• 10 years ago

Not IMF, World Bank:

http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P131256?lang=en

xadhominemx• 10 years ago

Ya, I don't think "EHM" is a real acronym that people actually use

dools3• 10 years ago

It's used in the book I linked to above (and stands for "economic hitman", an industry insider term; or so claims John Perkins who used to be one -- interesting book and worth a read)

xyzzy44• 10 years ago

The market cap of all the solar stocks in the industry ($14 billion or so) is about the same as the market cap of Twitter. Pretty baffling to me.

If you're a billionaire and want to be a trillionaire, all you'd have to do is buy every solar company and wait a few decades I bet.

cjensen• 10 years ago

There's no barrier to entry on anything solar-related. A wise investor would assume that serious competition will occur prior to reaching a trillion-dollar jackpot.

xyzzy44• 10 years ago

You could buy every solar startup as soon as they get to X size. Also hardware startups do have significant barriers of entry.

adventured• 10 years ago

There are in fact barriers to entry on everything solar.

It's: political connections, zoning, utilities, regulations, laws. Try putting up a huge solar farm without the right connections and insiders, don't grease the right wheels, see what happens. There's no bigger barrier to entry than that.

See: FirstSolar's benefit from being tied to the Walton clan (JWMA / True North Partners). FirstSolar is basically the world's largest independent solar company, is flush with cash, and very profitable. It's not a coincidence they've fared so much better than the rest of the industry.

"The Waltons own more than 112 million shares of First Solar, four times as much as the second-biggest shareholder"

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11491608/1/wal-marts-waltons-...

JTon• 10 years ago

This might be saying more about the valuation of twitter than solar

strommen4• 10 years ago

Solar power is a fully-developed technology. PV panels are a commodity that are manufactured mainly overseas. Most of the cost of a new solar plant is in the planning & labor. And it does indeed cost a lot of money to build a solar plant (relative to the amount of money you can sell its power for).

That said, solar and wind power are a great way to get consistent (but low) returns on your investment. Look into "solar bonds".

xyzzy44• 10 years ago

Actually returns (on solar companies) will probably be pretty high. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swanson%27s_law and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics

Looking at the graph from the first link, what will likely happen is solar installations will grow rapidly to meet the trend line, which means high revenue growth.

Solar is also currently priced like it's dying, so there'd also be a price/earnings increase.

diffraction• 10 years ago

If they only switch in one phase won't that cause imbalances on their power grid? Hyuk.

sandworm101• 10 years ago

There is a rule for calling yourself the "tallest building" that is relevant here. You aren't the tallest building until you have topped out. Before that, you are just a construction site. This is important because it means you cannot be "tallest" while still under construction. The title belongs to the tallest current building until such time as you stop building.

This "worlds biggest" solar plant therefore isn't. It isn't yet biggest. It may never be biggest. It may be passed over by some other plant started tomorrow. Or it could stop expanding before ever reaching its designed size.

woodandsteel• 10 years ago

It occurs to me that the Middle East is very well endowed with both petroleum and sunshine, but the latter is far more evenly distributed.

dharma1• 10 years ago

a bit OT, but I have about 70m2 south facing roof space (UK) where I'd like to install solar panels at some point. How are panel prices likely to develop over the next 5 years? Should I wait, will panels become ridiculously cheap in the near future?

blacksmith_tb• 10 years ago

I can't speak to the UK specifically, but I have 4.8kW system on my south-facing roof in similarly-cloud Oregon. Panels will continue to get cheaper, but likely the largest part of the cost will be the installation, and that is not likely to become cheaper nearly as soon (though it should gradually, as it's more and more common).

Morocco to switch on first phase of world's largest solar plant

Related Stories