Ouarzazate

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

The BBC, that bastion of slanted reportage on all things green, has an article about a new solar power plant entitled “The Colossal African Solar Plant That Could Power Europe“. It’s full of all kinds of interesting information about the plant, located in Ouarzazate, Morocco. Man, how come Africa gets all the great place names, that one just reeks of mystery, “Ouar-za-za-te”, makes me want to go visit … but I digress. It’s called the “Noor” power plant, from the Arabic word for “light”.

The reporter talks about a variety of things, including the fact that on the day the reporter visited it was overcast … but somehow, despite hyperventilating about just how awesome and gosh-dang wonderful the plant is and the difference this will make to the planet, the reporter never got around to talking about the cost. Funny, that.

ouarzazate-noor

Being a congenial sort of fellow, at least on a good day with a following wind, I figured I’d give them a hand. The relevant numbers are available at the Wikipedia page—the plant cost $3.9 billion dollars US ($3.9E+9, much of it a gift from hard-pressed European taxpayers diverted by guilty CO2-obsessed European liberals), and it produces 370 gigawatt-hours per year (370E+9 watt-hrs).

Now, in the US a power plant typically sells its product for something like six cents US per kilowatt-hour. Multiplying that by 370 GWhr/year gives us an annual value of the energy produced of about $22,000,000 dollars per year.

And at twenty-two mega-bucks per year, how long will it take to pay back the $3.9 billion dollar cost of the plant?

Er … um … breakeven time is a hundred and seventy-seven years … but only if there are zero maintenance costs … and if there is no interest on any borrowed funds … and if you don’t count avoided income available from investing the four giga-bucks elsewhere for a century … ooogh.

However, I do note that on the Wikipedia page it says that they are selling the electricity wholesale at US$ 0.19 per kilowatt-hour. Not good news for poor people in Morocco. This brings the breakeven time down to a mere fifty-six years … again if there are no maintenance costs, no interest costs, and no avoided income.

You know, people keep selling these plants on the basis of saving the world, but at that horrendous cost and huge breakeven time, I’m not sure we can afford to keep saving the poor thing time after time …

Further research, however, elucidates the conundrum. It turns out that this is not just an energy generation plant. It’s a moral lesson for the world and a harbinger of the future and will save CO2 and serve as a template for really big money wasting projects and … hang on, that’s my interpretation. Let me get the actual claims, curiously from a Freedom of Information Act document. To start with, it says:

Both cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis indicate that the project is not economically justified under prevailing economic conditions. 

Ya think???

However, the plant is supposed to provide the following intangible benefits:

  • Climate change mitigation
  • Increase in factors of production (physical capital, human capital, and natural capital)
  • Accelerated innovation, through correction of market failures in knowledge
  • Enhanced efficiency, through correction of non-environmental market failures
  • Increased resilience to natural disasters, commodity price volatility, and economic crises
  • Job creation and poverty reduction

My favorite? “Correction of non-environmental market failures”. That’s got to be worth big bucks.

So all you have to do is to put numbers on those intangibles, make the values large enough, and suddenly this money-losing proposition will be ready to “power Europe” … at three times the market cost of electricity … not counting significant transmission costs … as soon as the multibillion dollar high voltage high ampacity DC undersea power cable gets funded and designed and laid across the Mediterranean from Morocco to Europe …

Another beautiful green dream ship wrecked on a reef of hard economics. It least it seems no US taxpayer money is going into this debacle. That’s good news, because we need it to line Elon Musk’s pockets …

w.

Por favor, if you disagree with someone please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU DISAGREE WITH. I can defend my own words, but only if I know which ones you are referring to.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
265 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Kramer
December 10, 2016 3:04 pm

I assume that 3.9 Billion does not include the costs of a sea bottom transmission line to Europe. I’m not an electrical engineer but is that even possible without intermediate stations which would have to be sea bottom as well. You also need to add in the transmission costs.

James Kramer
Reply to  James Kramer
December 10, 2016 3:25 pm

I checked a couple of things, the Gibralter Strait is 9 miles across roughly at the closest point between the Africa and Europe. It ranges between 900 and 3000 ft deep and the bottom profile is rough.
Germany, France and Spain collectively used about 1,250,000 GW/hr in 2015

jim
Reply to  James Kramer
December 10, 2016 5:48 pm

Power all of Europe through one transmission line?
What a target: one key point to destroy all of Europe!!!
Did they count the BILLIONS that will be required to defend it from terrorists?

Bryan A
Reply to  James Kramer
December 10, 2016 8:28 pm

This thing will be just like Ivanpah when completed.
Total of 3 molten salt reactors…
Cover about 5 square miles…
Have a nameplate capacity similar to Diablo Canyon Unit 1…
Probably produce about 1/4 of that…
Still require conventional backup to keep the salt hot…
As for powering Europe goes…RIIIGHT perhaps power 1 in 50 homes for 6 hours a day

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  James Kramer
December 11, 2016 6:00 am

blockquote>….. and it produces 370 gigawatt-hours per year
I assume that actually means …..
it produces 370 gigawatt-hours ….. per each group of ‘365 / 6-hour’ non-cloudy/non-dust stormy days
And who/what provides the power for the other 18 hours of each of those 365 days?

Reply to  James Kramer
December 11, 2016 6:49 pm

It is one giant terrorist target from a few crazy Muslims running around chasing camels on the sands of North Africa.

gregfreemyer
Reply to  James Kramer
December 10, 2016 7:31 pm

The high power line is routine engineering for at least 50 years. They want to build a long power line from Iceland to England. High power DC is the way they do undersea power lines since day 1..
The real trouble is 1 GWH per day is a trivial amount of power. Not worth building a power line to get such a trivial amount of power..

Bryan A
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 10, 2016 8:31 pm

Seeing what has happened in the Mojave, 1GWH per day will probably be 300MW without fossil assistance

Greg
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 10, 2016 11:54 pm

1 GWH per day / 24h = 1E09 / 24 GWH per hour = 41.7 MW
If they can make that into 300 MW, they have solved the world’s energy problems !

Tim Crome
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 11, 2016 12:41 am

Norway and Germany are currently “investing” in a power interconnector for the small sum of 28BNOK, about $4B. It may not be directly comparable but gives an indication of the order of magnitude of the cable cost.
The Norwegian German project is another green scheme to allow Norwegian hydroelectric to balance German wind and solar. The effect on us poor norwegian power consumers is that we will have to pay both higher electricity costs (El in Norway is currently cheaper than in Germany, but that will even out.) and half of the investment!
Another cable will connect Norway to the UK, total amount of copper for both sets of cables is 280000T, so I guess the copper producers are happy!

Nigel S
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 11, 2016 1:35 am

Don’t forget to allow for a ship dragging its anchor which is believed to be the cause of the loss of half the France/UK interconnector in November and possibly the straw that breaks the camel’s back for us this winter.
https://www.ft.com/content/52e957a6-b64a-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62
To add insult to injury the Met Office have taken to naming every bit of bad weather to keep up with the big boys in USA. Hence ‘Angus’; I’m shocked, shocked to know that there is bad weather in The English Channel in November.

Robertvd
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 11, 2016 3:37 am

Tim Crome “us poor norwegian power consumers” I’ve been to your beautiful country this year but I was sad to see how your country is changing in a Big Brother state where government wants to know how you move and what you spent. I thought Norwagians were freedom loving people. I’ve seen the same thing hapening in Denmark and Sweden.
http://www.tolls.eu/norway
http://www.ibtimes.com/norways-biggest-bank-calls-country-stop-using-cash-2276140

Don K
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 11, 2016 7:32 am

“Seeing what has happened in the Mojave, 1GWH per day will probably be 300MW without fossil assistance”
Different technology Bryan. Ivanpah is molten salt which isn’t working as well in practice as on paper and in pub/internet ahem … “discussions”. Quarzazate looks to be solar PV which is reasonably well understood. It might actually deliver 1GW. And it shouldn’t need fossil fuel assist … just fossil fuel or nuclear or hydro or something backup. BTW, since the sun doesn’t shine at night and PV doesn’t work well at low sun angles and there are some cloudy days, Quarzazate is probably something like 3GW one third of the time rather than 1GW continuous.

Bryan A
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 11, 2016 9:09 am

Wow Tim, if your figures pan out, just look at all those Green Jobs being created /snarkasm

Tim Crome
Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 11, 2016 9:29 am

Nordlink webside with indicative costs and the envisaged benefits.
http://www.statnett.no/en/Projects/NORDLINK/

Reply to  gregfreemyer
December 12, 2016 2:29 am

The noon solar power plant consists of two solar trough plants with different capacity molten salt storage, a solar tower plant with molten salt storage and and a PV power plant.
Seems they do a research what works best.
Check the details at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station

LewSkannen
Reply to  James Kramer
December 11, 2016 3:45 am

Cables are old technology. They should transmit the power via satellite!
😉

Ronald Todd
Reply to  LewSkannen
December 11, 2016 3:58 am

A giga watt of power from Arab lands beamed down from satellite what could possibly go wrong?

The Original Mike M
Reply to  LewSkannen
December 11, 2016 5:55 am

via satellite! … all to Al Gore’s house.

Reply to  LewSkannen
December 11, 2016 7:22 am

“Cables are old technology. They should transmit the power via satellite!”
Dude, It’s all wireless these days.
Homage to Fletch !!

LdB
Reply to  LewSkannen
December 12, 2016 1:04 am

If you look at the design criteria for 10KW Reunion island feed you will see the problem
https://web.archive.org/web/20051023080942/http://www2.univ-reunion.fr/~lcks/Old_Version/PubIAF97.htm
The beam needs to be 17m wide for 10KW to keep the power level below biological safe level of 5 mW/cm2.
It s a simple calculation power (10KW) divided by cross sectional area (2226 cm2)
Now try the calculation of 40MW or 330MW 🙂
If you can’t do the maths you need a 320m wide beam for 40MW and a 2100m wide beam for 330MW. Nice antenna arrays for those sizes 🙂
I guess the alternative is to fry anything flying into the beam … if you get it high enough in density we could go for instant fried bird for the locals as a side benefit.

December 10, 2016 3:06 pm

The Beeb’s reporter also ‘forgot’ to mention ……

Fossil Fuel Needs
Energy supply using fossil fuel is crucial in order to:
– maintain the eutectic salts at high temperature so that they remain liquid (solidification at 110°C), and
– maintain the temperature of the oil above its minimal operational temperature (8°C for synthetic oil) and feed the pumps at night so that oil keeps circulating in the circuits.
Back-up fuel needs for the Ouarzazate complex have been estimated at 19T/day of gasoil for a capacity of 500 MW. Gasoil with a sulphur content of 50 ppm is recommended.

http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Environmental-and-Social-Assessments/Morocco_-_Ouarzazate_Solar_Power_Station_Project_II_-_ESIA_Summary.pdf

LewSkannen
Reply to  Joe Public
December 11, 2016 3:46 am

That probably explains those large oil tanks in the picture.

Reply to  Joe Public
December 12, 2016 9:19 am

19T/day? Is that 19 tons? That is not trivial.

Rob
December 10, 2016 3:06 pm

My last power bill retailed to me at about 4,4 cents a KWH. That’s power generated from coal.

Reply to  Rob
December 10, 2016 3:34 pm

I’d bite your hand off for 4.4c/kWh. My tariff here in Fife, (Scotland) is around 14p/kWh when all the fixed costs are included.

bit chilly
Reply to  Ewan Macdonald
December 10, 2016 4:01 pm

luckily we have not had any proper winters for a while here on the east coast,so usage is down. with the amount on biomass plants of differing sizes being built around the kingdom i am hoping the uhi effect will keep the usage low 😉

Reply to  Ewan Macdonald
December 10, 2016 4:17 pm

And of course, every apple you eat, every toilet you flush, every council service you use, are gobbling up 14.4p/kWh that’s passed onto you (and me, I only live 400 miles from you).

Rob
Reply to  Ewan Macdonald
December 10, 2016 5:31 pm

The 4.4 KWH cents doesn’t include all the fixed costs. One of the my bills that I checked a while back, put the total cost at around 14 cents a KWH when everything was factored in. I’m in Alberta Canada.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Ewan Macdonald
December 10, 2016 6:27 pm

From central Washington State
Residential rate, monthly
Facilities Charge . . . . . $19.00
Energy Charge … . . . . $0897/kWh
Our house is 100% electric
Wood stove for emergency heating

daveR
Reply to  Ewan Macdonald
December 11, 2016 11:16 pm

Just across the county border its 14.3 pence per unit – double what it was just eight years ago, There’s some serious gouging getting done on an intransigent public. Peterhead gas station recently lost out amongst the spare capacity boondoggle. Our so-called ‘executives’ will soon meet reality. Personally, I’d criminally try them for public offence under office.

Reply to  Ewan Macdonald
December 12, 2016 2:39 am

We come close to 30 €ct/kwh here in Germany, all costs and taxes included.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 4:20 pm

90 cents???? That’s insane!!!!

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 5:42 pm

So scratch that intangible “poverty reduction” and change it to “poverty creation”.

Rob
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 6:03 pm

That’s bad. In California you’re lucky that you don’t have to run a furnace all winter long, and whatever kind of winter you do get, isn’t as long or cold as ours is here in Alberta.

Alcheson
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 7:03 pm

Looking at my electric bill here in Fallbrook, CA. 15c for first 369 kwhr; then goes to 39c kwhr after that . Burning ~900kwh per month gets me ~29.2c/kwhr overall. Then there are the additional line and delivery charges which adds another $15 to the bill.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 7:32 pm

Rob – I think you must be looking at an old bill. My last EPCOR bill worked out to $233.27 for 2373 kWh which is 9.8 cents per kWh (October 14 to November 14) with taxes, distribution charge, transmission charge, rate rider, Balancing Pool Allocation and Local Access Fee. The Generation Charge was close to yours at 4.34 (two rates – 887 kWh at 3.684 and 1486 kWh at 4.385).
Power costs are down by about 2/3 from a couple of years ago when the economy in Alberta was going all out before the oil crash and surplus power wasn’t available. Then the generating charge was north of 11 cents per kWh and total charges were 16 to 17 cents per kWh.
Right now, the Pool price is depressed due to the crappy economy and low demand. Even the current cold snap isn’t expected to make much difference.
Now the Carbon tax and other regulation changes coming in January of 2017 is something else.
Reading the Provincial Government budget, out here in Faraway, Alberta (yup it’s a real place), my annual costs (Fuel, heating electricity etc -) look to be going up by about $5,000 per year and though I am long retired, selling my farm puts me in the category of No Carbon Tax Rebate that the government is advertising every day on TV. Even if I did, I bet the net cost versus the rebate won’t balance out for most people.
Government “watch the pea” game at it’s best. We all know the pea is palmed and there won’t be any winners except the “House”.
Sorry for the rant, Rob. Stay warm. My weather station says 26C below right now (30 with wind chill). Time to put another log on the fire.
Great article Willis.
Looks like solar makes sense in California with those kind of mid day electricity rates. But where I live, at this time of year, I get less than 3 hours a day of sunlight over the trees south of my house. Pretty much none on December 22.comment image?oh=d7affb38ec2073532aab98398bb9ab72&oe=58B659FE

Tiburon
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 8:37 pm

what’s truly insane is the provincial Liberal Government here in Ontario paying $0.80/kWh on 20 year contracts to homeowners/farmers/businesses who bought into rooftop solar photovoltaics (those who could afford the installations, that is). When the going peak rate is roughly $0.18/kWh
Did you know that the Niagra Falls hydroelectric turbines are running at something like 25% capacity?
Seems like some ‘renewables’ are more equal than other ‘renewables’…
No matter, Ontario is waaay past defacto bankruptcy. I’d say, ‘don’t invest’ but hey! Extend and Pretend. It’s the way of the world it seems.

Tiburon
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 8:45 pm

(spell check. dang.) “Niagara” Falls. And Wayne D: – thanks I guess for reminding me – The Ontario Carbon Tax coming as well, January 1st. Great windfall for corporations here, who can purchase discount carbon credits from the collapsed world market at far below set price here. Great scheme.
Follow the money.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 10, 2016 10:49 pm

I’m paying 25 (Euro) cents/KWh in Munich.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 12, 2016 7:51 am

Tiburon: the provincial Ontario Liberals are funding that preposterously over-subsidized tariff with taxes on your electricity and mine. The cost to produce the electricity is about 3 cents. We are paying 8 to 18 cents depending on the time of day. (Not counting transmission, distribution, fixed infrastructure, taxes, surcharges, etc. etc.) The difference is what’s paying for those vastly overpriced “renewable” installations… and it’s going to get significantly worse with the new carbon taxes in January!

gallopingcamel
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 14, 2016 10:06 pm

Still not the highest in the USA. The Connecticut average is $0.17/kVAh.

Manoel Silvestre-Borges IV
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 23, 2016 6:03 pm

I have to laugh whenever someone talks about electricity prices in the teens of cents per KWH being the “highest in the US”. We pay over $0.26/KWH on Kauai and Molokai is suppposedly over $0.30. Hawaii has been a US state for over 57 years…

NW sage
Reply to  Rob
December 10, 2016 4:24 pm

Here in the NW, the government funded (capital) and operated [Corps of Engineers] and distributed [Bonneville Power Authority – a government corporation] hydro power (upwards of 75% of our power used) now costs us between 9 and 10 cents USD per kwh ‘delivered’ to the door. The cost varies depending on the amount of flow that must be diverted if the salmon and steelhead in the Columbia river decide its time to spawn. And my area is served by a PUD [public cooperative – not for profit].

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  NW sage
December 10, 2016 6:32 pm

See my comment above where I missed a decimal point:
Energy Charge … . . . . $0.0897/kWh
Very similar situation, I think.

Rob
Reply to  Rob
December 10, 2016 8:33 pm

Wayne Delbeke
December 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm
No, I’m looking at the last Epcor bill which I just got from the mailbox yesterday. It’s not due until Dec. 22. This bill is up about $4.00 from the one before that which was $97 and change. I know the rates are low right now and have been for a while, and other than their stupid carbon tax, the rates are suppose to stay general low for the next four years. Temperature here right now, -20C. The crooks that run the province now, are running it into the ground. I think it’s going to get very expensive to live here, and since I’m retired, we’ve been talking about selling out and moving down to BC where winters are shorter and not as cold. Maybe in the Creston area or something like that.

Don K
Reply to  Rob
December 11, 2016 8:04 am

Ooops — damn. I guess it IS molten salt. Might well work as poorly as Ivanpah.

steven f
Reply to  Don K
December 11, 2016 9:43 am

The current door 1 facility only has 3hours of molten salt storage. In the morning there isn’t enough heat left in the tanks to preheat the turbine. Therefore a second heat source of (fossil fuel) must be used to preheat in the morning. The NoorII and III will have 8hours of molten salt storage available and in the morning will probably have enough residual heat left to preheat the turbine.
Ivanpah has Zero thermal storage. It needs natural gas to preheat the turbine in the morning.

December 10, 2016 3:08 pm

You have just refilled all my amunition pouches, thanks for the present Willis. Merry Christmas.

Roy Jones
December 10, 2016 3:17 pm

The Guardian gave it a write-up earlier this year:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/04/morocco-to-switch-on-first-phase-of-worlds-largest-solar-plant
They give the final cost as $9 billion:
“It is a very, very significant project in Africa,” said Mafalda Duarte, the manager of Climate Investment Funds (CIF), which provided $435m (£300m) of the $9bn project’s funding. “Morocco is showing real leadership and bringing the cost of the technology down in the process.”
Although they are getting a lot for their money:
“The power station on the edge of the Saharan desert will be the size of the country’s capital city by the time it is finished in 2018, and provide electricity for 1.1 million people.”
Perhaps they needed a show-case project for their presentations at the Marrakech Climate Change Conference. When you’re the host you have to make some sort of an effort if you want the subsidies to keep rolling in.

Patrick Ernst
December 10, 2016 3:26 pm

The power generation systems in Africa are woeful. I know a lot of Africans, from central Africa through to the North. Many run small businesses and are entrepreneurial. Others will take on humble jobs as cleaners, taxi drivers, aged carers and the like. They are taking the opportunity, here in Australia, to get their kids educated. Awesome peoples – kind and generous.
The European colonial mindset is still strong amongst some people, except is is intellectual colonialism. The “I know better what is best for you” thinking. If you do a search on Wikipedia for “power stations in Africa” you can see how woeful is the situation for the vast number of African countries. Countries like Ethiopia have enormous hydro resources but most other countries are generating pitiful amounts of power using diesel and other fuel oils. Some decent new coal and/or new gen nuclear with a proper grid would end the famines and wars in Africa, I believe.
Thanks for the great, if saddening, maddening post Willis.

Reply to  Patrick Ernst
December 10, 2016 5:13 pm

I think it was Matt Ridley who made a statement in his book ‘The rational Optimist’ where he says that wars are fought over food, nothing more.
Access to cheap energy and technology has allowed our agricultural systems to keep up with our population (so much so that the EU was chucking food down the drain to ensure competition was stifled) but we deprive the developing world of the same fossil fuel energy we used to get rich.
I have, for many years, struggled with the relative ethics of socialism and capitalism (well, conservatism). I always believed capitalism was the right course, but the altruistic side of socialism also attracted me.
My conundrum has finally been solved with the juxtaposition of the relative extremes, indeed the apparent flip where it seems capitalism is revealing itself, starkly, as more concerned with people and humanity that the socialism.
I never got the quote “Any man who is not a socialist at age 20 has no heart. Any man who is still a socialist at age 40 has no head.” as I thought people adopted lifelong political views. Now I’m over 40 (ahem…..well over 40) I’m glad I am now a capitalist (conservative) just as I was in my youth.
I now despise the stranglehold the left have had over the western world for the last 40 years or so. I despise them for their selfish desires couched in terms of caring for everybody whilst taxation is their principle means of wealth and non-jobs the pinnacle of achievement.
I’m all for the environment, wild animals, flowers, clean air and water, healthy living etc. But if we can’t afford anything but gruel to eat, we are doing something badly wrong, and socialism is rapidly sending us down the route of a gruel society.
I will be kneeling down at my bedside tonight, for the first time ever, and praying to an entity I don’t believe in, that Donald Trump is the real deal.
Dear Lord
may The Donald
liberate America and
encourage prosperity
The UK is at the start line
of Europe’s liberation
Talk to Russia and China
make the deal
not insecurity
their people are praying
Make trade
not war.
Amen.

TA
Reply to  HotScot
December 10, 2016 6:03 pm

Good post, HotScot. I, and many others, hope your prayer is answered.

John P Miller
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 7:14 am

The dilemma you felt between free market capitalism as a mechanism to ensure economic freedom and maximize wealth for all and the altruism of socialism is resolvable as follows. First, altruism MUST BE voluntary. One cannot force (at the point of a gun) someone else to be “charitable.” The result of such force is neither altruism nor charity. Therefore, socialism, which supports the notion that the State can use its legitimate force to compel some to give the fruit of their labor to others has NOTHING to do with altruism — or charity.
Therefore, for a just, civil, and prosperous society in which people are free to maximize who they can be economically and morally, one needs free market capitalism, a governmental structure that strongly reveals and punishes violence and fraud, and social institutions that encourage charity (which, by definition, must be voluntary).
I believe it is the mistake of thinking that taking care of those incapable of doing that themselves to a standard each of us deems acceptable should be compelled by the use of legitimate force (i.e., government) is what causes people to feel the dilemma you felt.
If one believes that forcing others to “give” to those less fortunate (to the standard and degree decided by those wielding that force) is acceptable, then any atrocity is possible.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 6:04 pm

“capitalism is revealing itself, starkly, as more concerned with people and humanity that the socialism.” I sincerely hope it didn’t take you years to come to that realization … I’ll guess your original ideas on capitalism came from a socialist teacher … and your current observation is just as wrong … capitalism is not concerned with humanity … capitalism is about freedom and its thru freedom that people and humanity take care of themselves just fine … just stop with the virtue signaling … take care of yourself and your family and friends … nobody else needs your virtuous help 🙂

Kalifornia Kook
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 10:46 pm

I’m an American. Our press loves to conflate crony capitalism with capitalism (and they are no where near the same). The Donald has made many promises. If he tries to achieve a small percentage of them, he will go down in history as a great president. When one looks at his Cabinet selections and transition team appointments, one can be shaken by the immensity of the problem he seems to be trying to solve. I was slow to come to backing him – and frankly, this was the first presidential election I did not support monetarily, because 1) he had no chance, and 2) he was probably blowing smoke.
But these appointments. They dwarf his words. He’s acting like a company CEO. He may make things happen. And if he does, he may change our lives – the world – dramatically for the better. He may achieve his silly-seeming rhetoric.
Then again, maybe he will turn into a politician, and we’re all screwed as usual. “Same shit, different day.”

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick Ernst
December 12, 2016 2:05 am

Go to Lagos, Nigeria, to see what “renewable nirvana” will look like when people deploy their own power systems.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick Ernst
December 12, 2016 2:08 am

“Patrick Ernst December 10, 2016 at 3:26 pm
Countries like Ethiopia have enormous hydro resources…”
There is a hydro plant on the Blue Nile, near the “Whispering Falls”, which diverts ~75% of water to generation. Downstream, Ethiopia is building the biggest hydro plant in Afica. Dwarfs Aswan. Countries downstream are a little concerned.

Gene Doebley
December 10, 2016 3:28 pm

Did the article mention what they do for power on cloudy days and over night?

auto
Reply to  Gene Doebley
December 11, 2016 11:53 am

Well, Gene, we will run diesel generators here in the UK. Of course.
Now, I like ‘environmentally friendly’ solutions. Most of my rain water goes into soakaways here on the South Downs, south of London.
But they need to be cost-effective ones.
I get a bit back fro the sewage company because I use soakaways
I’ve been to Ouzazate [a Marrakesh holiday day-trip in about 2005] Big film studio there, but also does get overcast – Atlantic clouds.
Name plate versus Actual. And if they have to run a Diesel to keep it warm – the green starts looking very green [with pictures of past Presidents . . . . . . .]
No – not snarko directo.
At all!
Auto

Lil Fella from OZ
December 10, 2016 3:31 pm

Costs? What costs. The Left don’t see the financial side of things

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Lil Fella from OZ
December 10, 2016 11:38 pm

Costs will be paid by buying a printing press for each solar plant. Employees, repairs, operating costs, and interest charges will be paid for in cash, offset by sale of power to users. A very small fraction of the output energy will be used to power the printing press, making the plant self-sustaining. Trump and his fellow oil industry capitalist minions will probably say this is all bogus, but don’t be fooled. Global warming think of the children robust Koch brothers Hitler 97% Putin ocean acidification dead coral malaria rising sea level extinctions dandruff Zika wooga-wooga monster…
/s

Hugs
Reply to  Lil Fella from OZ
December 11, 2016 1:07 am

Yeah, it’s like “lets double the costs” and “lets halve the price”, and “government should give money for this”.
The middle class, not totally convinced on the idea, is still forced to pay it all.
.

Reply to  Lil Fella from OZ
December 11, 2016 7:24 am

Very true.
Most calculations they make are static.

auto
Reply to  Matthew W
December 11, 2016 12:04 pm

Matthew
Most calculations ‘they’ make include a rather variable factor linked [indirectly] with the cost of fresh unicorn droppings.
Thus, magically – QED.
Free translation of QED is –
‘The answer you wanted/desired/lusted after can be delivered . . . . and IS! Just like that!’
[Apologies to Tommy Cooper, Comic Genius.]
Auto
I do futures in unicorn droppings, fresh, fermented or dried.
Snark.

Claude Harvey
December 10, 2016 3:31 pm

There’s not a central solar plant anywhere in the world that can stand on rational economics. One must resort to a perverted “good versus evil, benefits/cost analysis” in order to justify the awful things. And one must not include among those costs the backup and/or energy storage capital required to accommodate intermittent and variable solar power output.

Reply to  Claude Harvey
December 10, 2016 5:16 pm

And if, as we are assured, the climate is already beyond the ‘tipping point’ these mad schemes will be useless anyway as the climate will create hurricanes, droughts, dust storms etc. so they won’t work anyway.
What planet do these people live on?

Bill Crow
December 10, 2016 3:31 pm

Now all they need is advanced grid storage and transmission capability to actually use the electricity that might be intermittently generated.

Reply to  Bill Crow
December 11, 2016 7:21 am

I once facetiously proposed a data storage system that would store information by placing it into endlessly circulating packets on a token ring LAN. Perhaps a similar scheme could be used for the power gnerated here by building more or thicker wires!

December 10, 2016 3:31 pm

I thought that style plant looked familiar. It is a concentrated solar plant (CSP) from Abengoa. That Spanish company is in bankruptcy, its US subsidiary is in liquidation with the US government trying to recover $165 million of the $2.2 billion Abengoa received in guarantees and subsidies from the US alone. Great deal for the US. Great deal for Morocco. NOTs.
For economics of CSP and PV solar, see previous guest post Grid Solar at Judith’s Climate Etc.

Curious George
December 10, 2016 3:36 pm

It is a victory of philantropy over brain.

Reply to  Curious George
December 10, 2016 5:17 pm

I’m a taxpayer, not a philanthropist!

John W. Garrett
December 10, 2016 3:37 pm

What’s wrong with you ?
Why are you so worried about cost ?
Don’t you know it’s OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY ?
There’s an infinite supply of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.

Bloke down the pub
December 10, 2016 3:41 pm

Increased resilience to natural disasters, commodity price volatility, and economic crises
Good to know that Morocco doesn’t have any natural disasters that will affect it as much as they would a coal fired plant.

Mark from the Midwest
December 10, 2016 3:45 pm

But it’s so shiny!

David Chappell
Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 10, 2016 7:51 pm

For now…

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
December 11, 2016 1:47 am

Wait for the first sandstorm followed by the first rain.
Unless they have developed a solar panel that works when covered in 2″ of crusted sand.
And yes, it does rain in Morocco.

Latitude
December 10, 2016 3:50 pm

Accelerated innovation, through correction of market failures in knowledge
Enhanced efficiency, through correction of non-environmental market failures
=====
well, at least they plan on learning from their mistakes
So they set this thing up…no knowing what they were doing….but plan on learning how to do it later

December 10, 2016 3:51 pm

” [At] least it seems no US taxpayer money is going into this debacle.”
I think that’s not precisely true. The U.S. spends 3.3% of GDP on military spending. Germany spends just 1.2% and France only 2.2%. We cover much of the cost of protecting them, and of policing the world, which leaves them money to blow on boondoggles like this.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 11, 2016 12:59 am

Willis said:
“Trump said he’d do it, and he will.”
Well, Trump also said he’d prosecute Hillary Clinton…. We’ll see, but “because Trump said he would” doesn’t count for much.

auto
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 11, 2016 12:18 pm

Willis,
Do you read the Dilbert bloke – Scott Adams?
His blog is interesting.
Pre-election and post-election Trumps are different animals, if I understand right.
Not sure how that will play in middle America [likewise pro-anti-Brexiteering Remoaners here].
Probably needs some fidelity to campaign statements.
Not total [although “prosecute Hillary Clinton” may be reasonably elided. May, I said.].
Auto
I know we ‘Live in Interesting Times’ – but not sure I want to enjoy that!
Just like being warm.

Reply to  Thomas
December 10, 2016 4:39 pm

Yeah and these percentages are of drastically different GDPs.

TA
Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 10, 2016 6:07 pm

I think the next U.S. military budget is going to be pushing $650 billion.

TA
Reply to  Thomas
December 10, 2016 6:05 pm

Good point, Thomas.

Merovign
December 10, 2016 3:53 pm

I almost regret eschewing the “take advantage of dumb people” business model in my youth. It is the largest market, after all.
I was afraid I wouldn’t sleep well at night. I don’t anyway, but I’m also not rich.

Ross King
December 10, 2016 3:54 pm

Where’s Griff on this? I need my daily rib-tickler.

Reply to  Ross King
December 10, 2016 5:19 pm

Griff’s reading the writing on the wall.

Reply to  HotScot
December 10, 2016 9:53 pm

LOL!

Nigel S
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 1:40 am

Once he’s wound the weight back up to power the light no doubt.

Griff
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 8:46 am

I have been down the pub, which is serving an excellent seasonal ‘Advent Ale’

auto
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 12:20 pm

Griff
Good for you.
I’m imbibing a cheapo French red.
If we don’t cross post before, Happy Christmas, and A Healthy New Year!!
Auto

Patrick MJD
Reply to  HotScot
December 12, 2016 2:03 am

Do you know how much CO2 is emitted in beer making Griff? You planet destroyer!

December 10, 2016 3:57 pm

The promotion says it will power Europe. The problem is the same as all these remote projects, the distance you can transmit electricity without excessive line loss. From the location to Malaga in Spain is approximately 1000 km. This is at the limit of transmission, even if you do as Russia and Manitoba Canada did, and convert the power to DC to reduce line loss. The problem with that is the power lost in the conversion and the further loss when you reconvert to AC for the European system.
I can see African window cleaners being busy, but few others.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Tim Ball
December 10, 2016 6:43 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie
From near the Columbia River near: 45.596654, -121.117173
to Sylmar, CA (just north of LA. About 800 miles [1,300 km.]

Björn
December 10, 2016 3:58 pm

The wiki page says Noor1 is an 160 MW powerplant with expected output of 370 GWh/ year. Is your stated figure of 670 GWh/year a simple typing error or is the wiki numer in error?

Dorian
December 10, 2016 3:59 pm

What about….
How do they keep all the sand off the panels! And the associate cost!
Don’t forget its smack bang in the Sahara Desert. And what happens during sandstorms? How many days or weeks is this plant off-line! And Morocco gets lots of sandstorms.
So I have to ask…who is getting the pay-off on this? Where is the money going?
In 10 years time, Noor will be buried under 10ft of sand, and forgotten.

wws
Reply to  Dorian
December 10, 2016 4:20 pm

That’s exactly what I was thinking – one big sandstorm, and that thing is toast.

PiperPaul
Reply to  wws
December 10, 2016 6:34 pm

They’re going to put it inside a greenhouse so it has the added advantage of trapping greenhouse gases.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  wws
December 10, 2016 11:45 pm

Sandstorms will be outlawed by EU directive.

auto
Reply to  wws
December 11, 2016 12:23 pm

Jorge
Nearly wet my monitor with red wine. Hugely appreciated!
But – another example of the growing extra-territoriality of laws . . . . .
Auto.

Reply to  Dorian
December 10, 2016 4:41 pm

The surfaces will be sandblasted to useless before they get buried.

Tom Yoke
Reply to  Dorian
December 10, 2016 4:53 pm

The pay-off is to Virtue Signaling elites who get to display their green credentials to critics and competitors.
You disagree with spending money on a boondoggle like this? You must be in the pay of the fossil-fuel industry. Not virtuous like me.
That is the incentive structure that drives this stuff.

Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 11, 2016 7:25 am

“Not virtuious like me” +1 LOL

Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 11, 2016 7:25 am

Virtuous, sorry

Bryan A
Reply to  Tom Yoke
December 11, 2016 2:37 pm

Cube,
At first I thought you said
“Not vitreous like me”
But then you usually are clear on your statements

Ross Giddings
December 10, 2016 4:03 pm

As Margaret Thatcher so famously said
“The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money”

Reply to  Ross Giddings
December 10, 2016 5:22 pm

Ah! Our Mag’s.
Perhaps Theresa will prove as effective.

Nigel S
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 1:42 am

About the same time as this thing starts ‘powering Europe’.

auto
Reply to  HotScot
December 11, 2016 12:30 pm

Nigel,
Are you – how could you not be – a member of the Manically Over-Optimistic Club-Union?
[Moo-Cu]
Well, I hope little Terri fixes things, but I remain an agnostic, I fear . . . .
Auto.
Still in thrall to Southern Railways for my daily commute up to Town: – http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/service_disruptions/149985.aspx
Hardly worth getting up next week. Trains cancelled.
Off thread – but – blimey . . . . . . . . .

Robert Christopher
December 10, 2016 4:04 pm

You also need to include the cost of the Accounts department: bureaucrats,especially financial bureaucrats, don’t come cheap!

Horse Feathers
December 10, 2016 4:05 pm

I wonder how they will stand up to sand storms? The green house of cards is on the verge of collapsing. It’s all about wind – hot air, that is! 😉

Bryan A
Reply to  Horse Feathers
December 10, 2016 8:43 pm

Many will get “Etched” to the point of needing to be replaced. Though it will provide government jobs for mirror maintenance.

1 2 3 4